You live in a country. Your country is having an election. There are two candidates. The Blue candidate is a Freedom candidate - free speech, limited government, etc. The Red candidate is a would be Communist dictator who is very open about his aims. Both are known for being true to their word.Going into the election, the Communist dictator candidate insisted that it be an open vote. Now, the Freedom candidate insists that, if he wins, no one will be harmed. Meanwhile, the Communist candidate is clear that, should he win, everyone who voted against him will be sent to the firing squad for being bourgeois dogs. On the other hand, everyone who voted for him has his personal assurances that, so long as they follow his laws, their lives will be safe.Which candidate do you vote for?
>>533933841You never vote for the commies you retard. They have a tremendous track record of ruining things.
instead of voting i shoot the commie candidate dead
It's a hypothetical, people.Do try to keep up and stay within the laid out scope of the scenario.
>>533933841Better dead than red
>>533933905Well yes.But if half+1 of the voters vote for him and you don't then he's sending you off to the great big gulag in the sky.
>>533933841>communist>participating in bourgeois electoralismshitty hypothetical. if he (or she) is on a ballot then I can't take him seriouslybut you asked an AI to write this thread so maybe try asking the AI what it would do
>>533934396>everything's ai!No, I wrote this. AI would have worded it better.But just admit it. You're just trying to avoid answering the question.Which way do you vote - red or blue?
>>533933841>Which candidate do you vote for?I will break both your legs and booby trap the voting booth
I find it fascinating that no one here can answer a simple question.There's no right or wrong answer here guys. I'm not judging which way you pick, nor will I pounce on you.I literally just want to see how people think given the scenario I've laid out.
>>533934617Politicians are the problem, not the solution and that is why I refuse to participate.
>hehe I rephrased pascal's whatever>I'm doing a game theory! I'm smartkill yourselfyou're not even annoying, you're merely unintelligent, stupid, so to speak
>>533934747Kek, you refuse to participate because you know you'd vote for the Blue candidate even though every part of you supports the Red button given the way this question has initially been framed.But it's okay. I don't judge.>>533934790Not at all.Why are you afraid to answer the question? Why are you working so hard to deflect?
>>533934830You assume too much. I did not read your entire post, all I saw was >Politicians>Vote>Blue or RedAnd the answer is always the same.BURNIT TO THEFUCKINGGROUND
>>533934972Kek, fair enough. Shame you're not interested in actually answering the question but, I mean, I'm not looking to force anyone to.Just seemed like an interesting thought experiment to me but if no one's interested then no one's interested.
>>533935050>Just seemed like an interesting thought experimentI feel like these kinds of thought experiments are absolutely useless, because in reality politicians always promise one thing and then go ahead and do the complete opposite.Therefore, anything they say should be thrown out the window immediately.They are supposed to be serving the people and the problem nowadays is that they've turned all of that around. They think we are serving them and they can do whatever the fuck they want.
>>533935522It's an abstract question. I'm not straight up asking do you prefer freedom or communism.It's a reframing of the Red Button vs Blue Button question. Everyone in the world is presented with a pair of buttons. They can choose red or blue. If more people pick the blue button, everyone lives. If more people pick the red button, everyone who picked the blue button dies.In most online responses I've seen, people pick the red button, as it's guaranteed life versus an unnecessary possibility of death.I'm simply curious how people approach that particular question given a slightly different scenario.
>>533933841difference is that if the commie wins the election, you can just kill the government. They don't win automatically
>>533933841Red has already shown willingness to murder a large number of people and "his laws" could amount to anything therefore lives not safe. It seem unlikely that anyone would not vote against him in the future after firing squading anyone who didn't.Blue ftw. Fuck that boot on neck shit.
I dont vote
>voting for commiesI know you're trying to reframe the red vs. blue button thought experiment, but you're clearly retarded because commies always kill everybody anyways even their own supporters
>>533936106You're taking issue with the details to avoid answering the question.Assume, for the sake of discussion, that this one didn't and that, as stated, he is in fact true to his word.Which way do you vote?
>>533933841freedom guy because there is a very clear downside inflicted to yourself when voting for the other guy. That downside means freedom guy is basically guaranteed to win after basic cost-benefit analysis is employed by everyone else. You've missed the point of the original hypothetical. Red/blue button is about a zero downside situation.
>>533935901>people pick the red button, as it's guaranteed lifeI would've picked the red button too, but not for that reason.And as I've typed out my reason, I realize that it sounded really dark.I think Im gonna sit this one out chief.
>>533935952>>533936193I appreciate you both answering.>>533936193Not at all. I'm mostly just curious how the change of the details affects people's logic in approaching the scenario.
>>533933841blue duh, there's no downside again.
>>533936195Kek
Nah, no votes from me tyvm. :)I'll just watch the circus, but also, I am a clown too. lol
>>533933841Bunch of retards tiptoeing around answers. I press blue, as i believe given this level of propaganda most people would press blue and living under commie regimes is soulless anyways.On the normal version of the problem i press red, however.
>>533936180>a commie being true to his wordThis detail upends the entire thought experiment. It completely eliminates the whole point of the red button, in that pushing the red button has no personal cost.In your version, the personal cost is infinitely expanded because you now have to live under commies which is one of the worst types of government ever conceived. Even the nazis tried to improve things, commies just turn everything to shit.
>>533933841I stay home and watch anime on voting day
>>533933841>Guys I rephrased that meme poll from twatterno one cares retard
Can you make it any dumber for the really dumb, red blue makes dollar bill green. None of them give a shit about your ugh ugh speech or freedom to ugh.
>>533936419Which is all true and not a bad point. Again, this being a fictitious scenario that exists in a fantasy world, we'll just say that it's an honest dictator who somehow knows how to make it work pretty decently.Given that, possible death voting for freedom or assured life under a stern-but-fair communist dictator, which choice would you make?
>>533933841Your reframing of the question just shows that the only way to make choosing blue be the moral choice is by attaching some sort of extraneous bad outcome to the red button, and a good outcome to the blue button, in order to overcome the initial weighting of the original's dilemma. By removing the hypothetical from its initial framing you will just turn it into a debate about whether le communism is better than le freedom.Anyway, bluefags stay coping and seething.
>lol
>>533936739Again, I was merely curious about people's thought processes and how the change in scenario affects their initial logic. I find it curious that you feel attacked by that.I notice you didn't bother to answer, btw. Actually, people's refusal to answer given the shift in scenario is the most interesting aspect of all - seems like it should be simple to say, "in the original question I'd say red but in *this* scenario, given the added consequences, I'd vote blue and that does not reflect on my answer to the original question." But no, all my question gets is nitpicking and avoidance.
>>533933841vote for the communist so you can crush them and their faggot firing squads as soon as they come for one of your friends
>>533933841I dont vote. I do not consent to another man having dominion over me.
>>533936246>I'm mostly just curious how the change of the details affects people's logic in approaching the scenario.When another condition is added it typically just adds a massive swing one way or the other. red/blue button is balanced very well. It avoids pushing people one way or the other, and the choice becomes "Be safe and accept that some people will pick blue and may die" or "risk death to try and prevent people who pick blue from dying." It presents a problem where the solution for everyone to live is risk free and obvious(everyone presses red). However, because of how people work, at least a few people are going to press blue for some unfathomable reason. That means 51% blue is the only way to ensure not a single person dies. However, if that threshold isn't reached, every blue press is just another victim adding themselves to the pile of bodies. It's an all or nothing gambit and red pressers choose to fold and leave the table, while blue players choose to bet it all on black.Fascinating question to be honest. Which is probably why it's gotten alot of threads. Choosing to try and fix a problem which can only exist if people choose to try and fix the problem in the first place because you know at least a few people are going to try and fix it and those people did it because they know other people will try and fix it.
>only thirdies and shitbirds would press redLet's play that out. Assume every white man in the world presses blue, and we'll round up for funsies. We'll assume the current population of Europe is all white. We'll assume half of the US population is white. All of canada and Australia will be considered white. >global white population982millionLet's say one third of the thirdies, the rest of the world's population, vote blue.>total world pop8.14b-982m=7.16bOne third of that is 2.386b>total blue votes3.368b or 41%
Vote blue obviously. Now in the original hypothetical red vs blue scenario i would obviously eat the red pill.
>>533933841Please, never stop making threads about this. These are hilarious.
>>533933841Blue button. Only spiritual niggers choose red. Doesn't matter how you frame it.
>>533937522Imagine if you're all standing on the ledge of a building. You're told, if enough of you dangle from the ledge, you'll be given a ladder so you can be safe.Would you dangle from the ledge?
>>533937085This enrages and confuses the reddittor
>>533933841Reddit niggers actually think this is what the question asked.
>>533937562That's not the same question framed differently. That's just a different hypothetical, entirely. You're a nigger.
>>533937731No it's not. The blue button puts yourself at risk, for literally no reason. To save the other people who also put themselves at risk. If everyone just pressed the red button, everyone is safe. It's a type of psychosis, putting your own head under the guillotine and demanding everyone else does the same.
>>533933841The purple candidate, the fascist who kills both of them and gives my life peace and prosperity.
>>533937826>If everyone just pressed the red button, everyone is safe.But that would never happen. Inevitably, people would press the blue button out of altruism, even if you want to call it stupid or naive. So by pressing red you're saying you don't give a shit about those altruistic people that wanted you to live. Again, spiritual niggers.
>>533937826> If everyone just pressed the red button, everyone is safe.Yeah, but if everyone just hit the blue button everyone would be safe as well.If 90% of people just hit the blue button, everyone would also be safe.Or 80% or 70% or 60%. Or even 50.1%.People only start dying when greater numbers of people start choosing that red button.It boils down to social trust. People who pick the red button have low levels of social trust. On the other hand, those who pick blue have high levels.The question is which creates a preferable society to live in.
>>533934039>Do try to keep up and stay within the laid out scope of the scenario.no
>>533938113Fair enough, it was worth a shot
>>533938003There is no altruism in the blue button. The first person who pressed it literally started a genocide game. You are a retarded gorilla nigger.
>>533933841I don't want to follow the commie's laws, so I vote blue in this case.In the original scenario, I still vote red.
>>533933841Neither. Both are shabbos goy slaves
>>533937283>>533938196I respect that in both these cases, I'm not here to judge and appreciate the feedback
>>533938196>I don't want to follow the commie's laws, so I vote blue in this case.>In the original scenario, I still vote red.This
>>533938156>The first person who pressed it literally started a genocide game.There is no "first person to start it". It's framed as a private vote. You retarded, illiterate potato nigger.
>>533938003>out of altruismOut of midwittism. We don't need those redditors amongst us anyway. >It boils down to social trustIt boils down to social stupidity. Whether society are stupid and sheepish normies or not.
>>533938277I think the fundamental difference of opinion when it comes to the original question boils down to what people consider to be the "default" button.One group sees self-survival as the default. The other sees the altruistic choice as default. Both see the other button as introducing the risk of death. Which isn't to say that the former group can't contain altruistic individuals or the latter selfish ones but it's fascinating how many differences boil down to those starting assumptions.
>>533936955>curious about people's thought processes and how the change in scenario affects their initial logicI gave you your answer. Your change to the question reframes it in a way to nullifies its inherent dilemma.>in the original question I'd say red but in *this* scenario, given the added consequences, I'd vote blue and that does not reflect on my answer to the original questionSure, I agree with this. But this is because your framing has disvalued the entire point of the argument. Press blue for heaven and utopia, press red for suffering, but also if red wins and you voted blue you die. Pic rel, its a pointless dilemma because communism winning ALWAYS results in a loss state, regardless of which choice one picks.>all my question gets is nitpicking and avoidance.You do know where we are, right? This place is full of people making constant reframings, moralizing, bad faith arguments and using outright sophistry to twist and bend the truth to their desired outcome. You shouldn't be surprised that people like myself are suspicious of reframings, especially when they effectively just flip the scenario to deliver a very one-sided outcome.
>>533938469Hey, I appreciate your input. I apologize if I came across as putting you on the spot. I just find this whole thing fascinating and enjoy exploring it from different angles.
>>533938082The red button doesn't do anything you stupid nigger. It's the equivalent of walking away from the blue button that starts the genocide gamble. Anyone who presses the blue button is a genocidal maniac.>>533938380sub-nigger IQ.
>>533938575The blue button doesn't do anything either unless a majority of people decide they'd rather hit that red one instead.Again, if everyone hit the blue button, no one dies either. What is hard to understand about that?
>>533938388As a anon in a previous thread pointed out -Blue button pushers:>emotional core = HopeRed button pushers:>emotional core = ContemptHave fun with your cult of Saturn
>>533933841>You live in a country.
>>533938538No harm done, I just like to bant as well. I'm enjoying the whole red v blue psyop as well, desu.Stay curious and questioning, mein Neger.
>>533938575>"No, you!"Nice retort, turbo niggerfaggot.
>>533938775Same to you!
>>533933841NONE I MAKE YOUR CHILD RAPE DUNGEON PARTY REGIME COLLAPSE BY UNSUBBING FROM PLAYSTATION AND NOT ACCEPTING LISCENSE AGREEMENTS OR BUYING ANYTHINGILL FIGURE OUT HOW TO LOG INTO MY ACCOUNT WHILE LOCKED OUT DUE TO THE TERMS EVENTUALLY
>>533938736The blue button pushers are the type of slackjawed unthinking normies who clap during Marvel Movies, and people too stupid to figure out the puzzle.
>>533937283
>>533936246Change the colors next time too
>>533939197I should have this time around but I don't plan on posting this again.
>Attempting to force people to choose the Blue canditate so a Democrat shill can be pushed while demeaning a Republican choiceIt's blatantly obvious that this is a pro-left/Democrat thread. At least OP isn't a 1PBTID faggot.
>>533939261>I should have this time around but I don't plan on posting this again.I would hope you keep working this thought-experiment. Good stuff, Anon.
>>533939100Covid isn't a good analogy as I could frame either choice as the pro vaxx choice fairly easily and have it make logical sense
>>533933841I’d rather die than be subject under the boot of a commie.
>>533938736>>emotional core = Contempt= Rational Self-InterestHarm minimization is a survival trait.
>>533939321Kek, nah, that's why I tried to frame the Blue candidate as small government and the Red candidate as a commie(incidentally, the party colors only really became standardized during the 2000 election, before that Republicans would sometimes be blue and Democrats would sometimes be red).>>533939416I appreciate that but I'd imagine other will. The alternative framing I've thought of takes it two ways, where everyone has one button instead of two. In both scenarios, everyone would have ten minutes to either push their button or not push their button. In one situation it would be the red button and in the other it would be the blue.It sounds like different situations but the point of curiosity for me there is the effect taking an active part in the decision versus just remaining passive plays in the choice one makes. Maybe that's dumb, I'm not sure.
>>533936955>i expected cooperation from autists after a question like the one i postedHave you ever considered the possibility that you are extremely retarded?
>>533939588In my defense, I thought my retardation was obvious.
>>533936630Communism is anything but fair. It's the worst system of government ever invented. There's no scenario where commies should even be considered a valid option.The whole point of the original thought experiment is the red button has ZERO downsides. It presents three possible resolutions:>50% or more people press the blue button, nothing happens>more than 50% of people press the red button, every blue dies>100% of people press the red button, nothing happensIn each of these three scenarios, nothing bad happens to you if you press red. There's no downside. In your scenario, you're actively fucking yourself over and this detail inverts the whole thing.>b-b-but you're not answering the question though!!Never vote for commies under any circumstances.
>>533939585>Maybe that's dumb, I'm not sure.Not at all.Delegation of decision-making to the 'collective' is a tell for many personality types.
>>533939749I'll chalk you down for red in the original question, blue in this one.It's not meant to be a gotcha.
>>533933841>Both are known for being true to their wordThis is too unrealistic for me to take seriously.
>>533933841This isn’t really an accurate reframing of the scenario because the original situation is completely neutral and inconsequential. If I pick red in the OG scenario I just simply live and continue on however that works. Only people who pick blue die. In your new retarded version of I vote red then I have to contend with the fact that I’ve voted in a communist retard to run my society. Change it to Hitler and I’ll vote red though.
No you fucking moron. when you remove the human deaths from the equation you simplify the problem completely. The only reason the original situation had any novelty at all was because by pressing red you are complicit in letting people who press blue die if they are in the minority, which they very well could be, as it is the riskier button push.
If you kill your enemies, you lose
>>533933841Why live if you cannot be free? Give me liberty or give me death. vote blue.
>>533934330>he thinks they won't send you off to the big gulag in the sky anywaysAnybody not picking blue is a communist and a faggot
>>533939749>you're actively fucking yourself over and this detail inverts the whole thing.True. How about a rewrite? Red is just another candidate, the blues get killed if the vote goes his way and the red survivors get to keep all of the blues' worldly possessions. No downside, huge upside.
>>533933841
>bluetard has to dress up his gay hypothetical to winThis thread is so fuckin stale mate give it up
>>533940054I kept the whole "deaths" part though.Vote blue candidate and everyone lives. Vote red candidate and everyone who voted for the blue candidate is executed while the red voters are guaranteed to live.
>>533939585>the effect taking an active part in the decision versus just remaining passive plays in the choice one makesIt play a pivotal part. It's pretty neat mental stuff. Take the poisoned pill and antidote scenario. The neutral action is just to do nothing so it's a much easier choice. With the buttons you have to actually press it. So the act in some people's minds assigns guilt to the presser for any consequences. Blues say reds are killers by not trying to achieve their group win condition. Reds call blues insane for clicking blue and introducing the risk of their death into the game to begin with. If you make it one button, regardless of which option the button triggers, the neutral option to not press it.
>>533933841this is just a normie shit test to sus out miggers. i didn't vote orange pedo nigger a second time but if i did and normies found out, i wouldn't blame them for lynching me like a zionist kike
>>533933841You're twisting the button question into apples vs oranges way too far for it to work.The original question is stupid anyway, if everyone went red no one dies just the same as if 50% of people chose blue, doing blue is simply inherent risk with 0 reward while doing red is 0 risk with a possible massive reward that a large portion of morons get culled.
>>533940239I feel like framing it as candidates introduces a lot of complexity that the original doesn't haveThe original is just a button press. There's no far-reaching consequences or things to consider except the immediate results of the button press. This is why it's somewhat interesting as a thought experiment.Framing it as political candidates makes it more complicated. No two candidates are exactly alike. It just isn't the same thing and doing it that way sacrifices the simplicity.
>>533933841Retardation aside, blueDying is of little concern, what matters is living well, integrity intact and so on. If actually presented with the choice irl there’d probably be a shameful amount of considering red
>>533933841>an election. . . . two candidates
>>533935901>It's a reframing of the Red Button vs Blue Button questionNo, it is not. But I wouldn't expect a bluetard to understand the difference.
>>533938454This
>>533940938It does if you don't hyper focus on the (admittedly poorly-chosen) details.Forget the Freedom-candidate/Communist-candidate part. Let's just call them Candidate A and Candidate B.Candidate A is running on the "everyone gets to live" platform. Candidate B is running on the "everyone who votes for Candidate A gets executed" platform. Lay aside what type of leader they might be otherwise once in office. Which one do you vote for?
>>533933841False equivalence. Pushing a button and then having an outcome is not the same as living under a Communist dictator
>>533941549Like I said, the details of the original question were admittedly poorly chosen. This is perhaps closer to the spirit of what I was trying to ask - >>533941538
